Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

The "9th" terminology is obviously an interesting but trivial matter, which I initially clarified for this thread. I believe how I learnt this gives it a consistency which I as yet cannot see from the alternative given here. I have no especial interest in defending a position on this.

It's trivial if you do not deal with letter chord notation. That notation is not confined to lead sheets. You will find it in lots of things that are fully written out. Your lack of interest in this kind of music does not make it trivial

Quote:

I still think, but am happy to agree to disagree, that the proffered reading/interpretation of the first 5 bars of this piece was in terms that wouldn't become valid for several decades after it was written and then in a different genre not related to what Debussy was writing here.

I never said it was. You are totally misunderstanding everything I set out to do. What we have is this:

M1, some kind of chordM2, same chord, down whole step, but now with bass notes addedM3, take M2 and transpose it back up

So far we have typical Debussy parallelism. We both know that he takes a chord, at any time, and simply moves it around simply because it is the sound he likes. Then where does he go? Just somewhere else. Impossible to fully describe.

I was simply saying that chord X may have a sound to it that we recognize, out of context, and that same exact sound may be used in many other places, going to different places. I am simply examing something interesting from as many angles as possible.

Quote:

My feeling is that whilst it tries to expand our and the writer's understanding, it appears to be forcing a context on the music that could not have existed when it was written.

Of COURSE it did not exist then. That's what makes is so amazing. Debussy was a pioneer. I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It is not about what DEBUSSY was thinking. It is about the influence he had on others, and still has on them. We get to use these cool chords and then play with them. They are like cool toys. Playing with them does not in any way negate the genius of the composer.

Quote:

Feuilles Mortes is part of Debussy's creating a new music that was not tonal and not jazz nor even a precurser of jazz. Debussy wrote the notes he wrote and I think it more beneficial to try to understand what he wrote and not what he could have otherwise written.

Well, it is quite easy to sit back and knock holes in what I am presenting. So why don't you take a crack at it? I might agree or disagree with you. Meanwhile, Debussy's reputation is quite safe, I think.

A surprisingly large number of bebop players drew heavily upon Debussy’s sounds when they were working to “keep away from” standard key centers.

Maybe this is why Gary hears jazz-like sounds in this: not because Debussy was predicting jazz 50 years ahead of his time, but because the jazz players were borrowing Debussy's sounds 50 years later.

BINGO!!!

Carrying this a philosophical step further, ponder this:We are all hearing simply sounds, from Debussy and from (let us say) bebop. SIMPLY SOUNDS. The reason that there are significant similarities in these sounds is because one was heavily influenced by the other. A quick look at the calendar, to which you refer, will reveal who influenced whom.

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

A surprisingly large number of bebop players drew heavily upon Debussy’s sounds when they were working to “keep away from” standard key centers.

Maybe this is why Gary hears jazz-like sounds in this: not because Debussy was predicting jazz 50 years ahead of his time, but because the jazz players were borrowing Debussy's sounds 50 years later.

You are EXACTLY right!

This is what I was after starting this thread:

1) At the time I presented the four "weird" major chords, I was lost myself. I did not yet see the octatonic scale, but in this case I am relatively certain that Debussy was using it. The main melody clearly uses it: E F# G *** A# to C#. The LH uses A# C# E. The RH chords sync in spelling with the octatonic scale. Only the bass, working almost like a pedal tone, does not fit that scale.

2) In the beginning, there are very interesting chords. By M3 we have all sorts of things. We have an F#7 chord over a G dim7 chord. It's hard to see, because the thumbs cross, but it can break up that way, and it's easy for the hands to feel those positions and instantly memorize the notes, if that is all we are after.

But in M3 there is also the 5th added in the bass. That creates, for my ears, an extemely interesting and ambiguous chord, and since the spelling does not show either a D# or D#m triad as its "base", it makes me wonder if Debussy chose his spellings for theoretical reasons OR for ease of performance (reading), and that also makes me ask why he overlaps the thumbs, something that is quite common in Schumann and Rachmaninov, just to name two composers who do this.

This was all I was after. I was asking questions, not asuming any speculations are correct. I did not set this up to play the big-shot, and I did not have set answers in mind when I presented my own thoughts.

I wanted something concrete to talk about, and I would like to continue uploading music itself just as I have in this thread, to discuss points, rather than trying to discuss abstract theory, dealing ONLY with rules without seeing how they are applied.

In the meantime, what do you think about my idea (from the post right after you first posted these first few measures of Feuilles Mortes) that he's suggesting an ocatonic scale? (Yes, officer, this nice man named Gary gave me this new hammer called Octatonic and now everything looks like a nail... I mean scale! .)

I think this may lead to a dead-end, for this reason:

An octatonic scale contains four different major chords. But that does not mean that if a composer does this, with major chords:

C, Eb, Gb, A, C

That the composer is thinking octatonic. In fact, if he were, it would produce the same unusual major chords that occurred in the Debussy section with the odd spellings.

Let's construct an octatonic scale but use all sharps, then respell chords to see what we could get:

B C---D D#--- F F# ---G# A---B C---D D#--- F F# ---G# A---B C

I extended it.

We see immediately: B major, D major, F major, A major

Then: B7, D7, F7, G#7 (Ab7)

We will have to use enharmonics. But the reason this seems an odd way to think is that I lose touch with the scale. If, on the other hand, I simply look for these:

B dim7, C dim7 (invert any way you want), then I start HEARING the scale. It is like a successions of leading tones, with each one moving to the next note in a dim7 chord.

In addition, since a half-diminished chord is simply a dim7 with one note 1/2 step higher, we have four of them:

B C---D D#--- F F# ---G# A---B C---D D#--- F F# ---G# A---B C

leads to B D F A, D F A C, F Ab B Eb, G# B D F#

Bøm Dø Fø G#ø

Some respelling is necessary.

There will be four of other chords, all with roots relating to the notes in a dim7 chord.

But for me I associate this scale mostly with dim and half-dim chords. I don't know if anyone else hears it this way. I THINK that improvisers do, but I would have to check with the jazz people who specialize in that kind of playing.

Quote:

Here's something else curious. In these measures he crosses the left hand thumb with the right hand thumb. For example, in the first measure, the lower staff has F#4 while the upper staff has E4. Why is that? I have no idea. Any thoughts?

Yes, I do, but stating them will probably get me shot by the Notation-Police. In my opinion the idea is that by exchanging those notes, you will be able to balance or "voice" the notes differently. For me that doesn't make a difference in sound, but you have to try it yourself and draw your own conclusions. I don't see that overlapping the thumbs makes any harmonic difference.

Quote:

If we uncross those notes, and give E4 to the LH and F# to the RH, then we have two chords that both share F# A#. Gdim7 in the LH (in root position, enharmonically spelled for the middle notes) and F# in the RH (also in root position). Could Debussy be experimenting with the sound of completing the inner notes of a chord in two different ways?

In this case I don't think so. If you move to the last page, P. 10 top, dans le sentiment du début, you will see something very similar. It is not the same, of course, but IF he wanted to keep the same chords in both hands, he would have to untangle the thumbs because now the hands are split by an extra octave.

Quote:

So there's a dissonance between LH and RH, but also a consonance, which makes the piece shimmer and sound open harmonically, but without sounding chaotic.

It's also like an upside down F#(b9) chord. To put the G on the BOTTOM gives a totally different sound. That chord puts a dim 7 chord in the chord, like F# plus A#dim7. If you take that G off the top and put it on the bottom, you get something very close to what Debussy has.

Quote:

What bugs me about the jazz chord names like #9 is that basically it just gives you a system where you can take almost any set of notes and give them a name and say "there, I've captured it". That's because every note of the scale appears as one of the scale degrees 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and if you allow #s and bs then you can get any note of the chromatic scale too. And then if you allow weasel words like "color notes" you can fit anything at all into this system!

That's a pretty standard chord today. It has a "funky" sound. I hear it as a chord that has a dominant 7 chord sound to it, but it is as if the minor 3rd is there OVER the major 3rd. Depending on key, you may see the "color tone" written as either #9 or b10:

C E G Bb D#

OR

C E G Bb Eb

Try voicing it this way:

C G Bb///E G Bb D#, notes befor slash with LH, after slash with RH. You may even HEAR funk in that...

Quote:

I apologize, Gary, this sounds like I'm disrespecting you,

Not all all...

Quote:

But another, hopefully more respectful and thoughtful, thought about the #9 name is this: Debussy presumably wasn't in a world yet where he had those names, to conceptualize what he was doing as "#9 plus color notes".

First of all, the #9 idea only holds up in the beginning. Later, when the idea returns, he uses a pedal C#, so it won't work there. And even if we think of F#7 and E7, the 7s disappear, but the odd "raised root" sound remains.

Names are for convenience, for grouping, and they help immensely in memorization. But I would say that Debussy was in his own world, and even though since his time jazz (and other styles of music) have used his sounds and voicings, obviously in different concepts, I don't think most of the world has CAUGHT UP to Debussy in the year 2012. His music still sounds "fresh" to me, not old at all, not like something in a museum.

But isn't that what genius is all about?

By the way:

Quote:

"THIS sounds like THAT!" experience, but my experience would be "sounds bichordal, major above diminished 7."

I hear that too. But since F#7/G dim7 shares three notes, I basically hear, in M1, F#7 with a color tone on the bottom. Something has been altered, and it sounds cool.

And exactly how we hear things does not necessarily add to or detract from our pure enjoyment of the sound, just as a sound, without name or description.

RCM uses a system where only the 7 is minor by default. So in both C# E# G# B D and C# E G B D, the D is b9. C# E# G# B D would be C#7(b9). (Not sure why, but they always insert the 7 explicitly in the case of a b9.) C# E G B D... might be C#ø7(b9).

The reason for that - look at these chords:

Cb9

Is it C plus b9?Cb plus 9?

The answer is that it is always a Cb7 chord plus 9, never the other.

7 is always assumed when you go beyond the octave. So C9 means C 3 5 7 9, and 7 is always m7, by default.The 7 is added to make clear what the root is when adding "b" might cause confusion. C7b9, C7(b9), C7-9 all do that. Cb9 doesn't, when the root is Cb.

There is a shortcut, but it is non-standard: C-9. The reason this CAN work, as a shorcut, is that you will never mistake "-" for "b". I tend to use + and - instead of # and b, for that reason. However, there is a tiny change that someone will read "-" as meaning "m" and so will end up with this:

Cm9, C Eb G Bb D

I use Cm7-5 instead of Cm7b5 or Cm7(b5) because it is faster. You can be as cryptic or non-standard as you wish, for yourself.

We tend to use more "standard" symbols when writing for others, since not doing so will cause confusion and mistakes.

I, too, prefer the use of the minus (-) sign to indicate lowering a pitch one-half step, and the plus (+) sign to indicate raising a pitch. In addition to relieving the ambiguity about which you just wrote, these do not carry the specific connotations of sharps or flats. In that sense, they are a little more universal.

So, if I want an E-flat augmented seventh chord, correctly spelled Eb + G + B + Db, I would rather see it as:(Eb+7) -or- (Eb aug7) , as opposed to (Eb7 #5), for the simple reason that the sharp (#) character strongly implies an actual SHARP, which the note B obviously is not.

Similarly, if I want a B minor seventh chord with a diminished fifth, correctly spelled B + D + F + A, I would rather see it as:(BØ7) -or- (Bm7 (-5)) , as opposed to (Bm7 b5). Here again the flat (b) character strongly implies an actual FLAT, which the note F obviously is not.

In the real world, we are faced with common usage, that is frequently a changing "mixed bag" of stuff, and musicians working in that world adapt. But it is nice, whenever we can, to return to what is theoretically correct (or, at least, "more correct".)

I recently purchased the Hal Leonard Sixth Edition of their REAL BOOK (a modern, legal version of the old "fake books"). As you know, Hal Leonard is a highly respected name in the jazz and popular music publishing field. For their chord symbols, that use BOTH sharps AND + to indicate raised pitches, and BOTH flats AND - to indicate lowering. So there you go.

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Interesting, thanks Gary and Ed. I find I prefer the # and b notation because I always have to think what - and + mean in this context. And, for whatever wierd reason, I never get confused thinking # and b in chord symbols mean an actual # or b, as opposed to up or down a half-step from normal. And + and - always makes me think "add this note" or "leave this note out". For example Eb+7 makes me think the same thing as Eb7, (even though logically you could say, well if it means the same thing (which it doesn't, I know now) why would it be written differently?). I could get used to + and - though, I'm sure. Now I'm curious to look in my (neglected) heap of pop music books and see what symbols they use.

Originally Posted By: LoPresti

I recently purchased the Hal Leonard Sixth Edition of their REAL BOOK (a modern, legal version of the old "fake books". As you know, Hal Leonard is a highly respected name in the jazz and popular music publishing field. For their chord symbols, that use BOTH sharps AND + to indicate raised pitches, and BOTH flats AND - to indicate lowering. So there you go.

Do they use them both on the same chord symbol? Or do you mean sometimes they use #/b and sometimes they use +/-?

Edited by PianoStudent88 (05/08/1210:58 AM)Edit Reason: added a bit, and a parenthesis

When I first encountered people talking about "flatting" and "sharping" notes, I resisted it. To me you raise and lower a note, and this is something that I hear. I think my beginnings with Solfege have something to do with that because the primary school teacher used an upright solfege board and would point to the symbols as we sang. The higher notes were literally higher. Recently I've become complacent, and started using "flatting" and "sharping" myself, and also writing symbols such as "b9". This has built some bad associations, which I have just caught on to. The letter name symbols themselves are relatively new to me and not as real as other things. Recently when someone says "B minor" I might play Bb major, because the idea of flats and the idea of quality and lowering have gotten mixed up in assocations. I am definitely going back to "-" to mean lowering something. In fact, in the Horwood book, there was B- which meant B minor, but that's another story.

A question for everyone. In your subjective experience, is Db a distinctive pitch and note on the piano that you feel in your psyche and bodies, or is Db a D which is brought down one key?

. . . I find I prefer the # and b notation because I always have to think what - and + mean in this context. And, for whatever wierd reason, I never get confused thinking # and b in chord symbols mean an actual # or b, as opposed to up or down a half-step from normal. And + and - always makes me think "add this note" or "leave this note out".

Well now, here we get even further out on this perilous limb! Obviously, the symbol (+) , in anything but music, means "plus" or "Add". And, of course, we have occasions where we "add" notes (your favorites: color tones) to chords:

D7(add 2) -- correctly spelled D + E + F# + A + C .

So, how does one DECODE D+9(add 6)? My headache is starting to return . . .

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

I recently purchased the Hal Leonard Sixth Edition of their REAL BOOK (a modern, legal version of the old "fake books". As you know, Hal Leonard is a highly respected name in the jazz and popular music publishing field. For their chord symbols, that use BOTH sharps AND + to indicate raised pitches, and BOTH flats AND - to indicate lowering. So there you go.

Do they use them both on the same chord symbol? Or do you mean sometimes they use #/b and sometimes they use +/-?

I have not yet found that exact situation, where they use both the b symbol and the (-) symbol on the self-same chord, but there are 462 tunes, most of which are harmonically complex, so I will not be surprised when it comes up. They do use the different indicators within the self-same tune frequently.Ed

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Recently I've become complacent, and started using "flatting" and "sharping" myself, and also writing symbols such as "b9".

Yup! You say complacent, I call myself lazy when I do this, but I read these equally instantly, with no indecision.

Originally Posted By: keystring

A question for everyone. In your subjective experience, is Db a distinctive pitch and note on the piano that you feel in your psyche and bodies, or is Db a D which is brought down one key?

LUSH LIFE by Billy Strayhorn. It could not EXIST in any other key (Db major).

Puccini takes his lovers deep into the flat keys (Ab, Db, and especially Gb (Eb minor)) for their more impassioned duets, and it could not be any other way. The strings are so dark in that territory! Ed

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Recently I've become complacent, and started using "flatting" and "sharping" myself, and also writing symbols such as "b9".

Yup! You say complacent, I call myself lazy when I do this, but I read these equally instantly, with no indecision.

I should correct an impression. I was complacent only in accepting what the majority was calling things. It is my diligence which did me in: I carefully labelled every lowered note with "b" and after a while I began to associate this "b" with lowering, so the associations got muddled. As a teacher I know about associations. These symbols are relatively new to me. They are still forming. It is best to keep b meaning "flat", and use it for other things. After reading this thread it dawned on me that the new habit of writing "b" to mean "lower a note" is creating this new problem.

Originally Posted By: keystring

A question for everyone. In your subjective experience, is Db a distinctive pitch and note on the piano that you feel in your psyche and bodies, or is Db a D which is brought down one key?

Quote:

LUSH LIFE by Billy Strayhorn. It could not EXIST in any other key (Db major).

Puccini takes his lovers deep into the flat keys (Ab, Db, and especially Gb (Eb minor)) for their more impassioned duets, and it could not be any other way. The strings are so dark in that territory! Ed

That makes sense and I would tend to agree. If this involves strings there is also another factor: In Ab major, the only note that can resonate with an open string is G, and so there is a particular "less shiny" quality.

I have an idea about the crossed thumbs. If you look at m.3 and ignore the bottom notes in each hand, you have a D#m7 chord. So putting the G on LH pinky and the E on RH thumb gives you two chords where the unusual notes are at the bottom of the hand/chord as written, to emphasize that these are the different notes.

OK, that might be an idiotic theory.

Question: do the clusters in mm.6-9 have names? I'm finally able to sit down at the piano and play^H^H^H^H limp through these measures, and I love the sound of those chords. (They don't have to have names, I'm just wondering if this powerful naming convention has got its organized classifying fingers on these lovely chords.)

Puccini takes his lovers deep into the flat keys (Ab, Db, and especially Gb (Eb minor)) for their more impassioned duets, and it could not be any other way. The strings are so dark in that territory!

That makes sense and I would tend to agree. If this involves strings there is also another factor: In Ab major, the only note that can resonate with an open string is G, and so there is a particular "less shiny" quality.

Yup, and I am going to give old Giacomo even more credit that the "less shiny" sound quality. Years ago, when I was working closely with string sections, I could see and feel the UNREST building when the orchestra moved away from "familiar ground", key-wise. The change in the air was palpable! The brass were decidedly uneasy in the more "sharp keys", now having to concentrate carefully on intonation, where the strings were merrily singing away. However, because the strings are SO EXPRESSIVE, when they were uneasy, EVERYTHING changed!

And here is where Old Jack receives my very deepest admiration: He takes us, his listeners, his players, and his lovers, through fairly familiar territory much of the time: G major, Bb major, D minor, E major. The melodies are soaring! The harmonies rich and shifting. But then, at exactly the right moment, when we do not think the emotion can possibly build any further, he pulls us right out of our skin with a modulation to Db major! Those prized strings, now referring to each individual player, are digging DEEP within themselves, full adrenaline, restless, and searching for the pitch, vibrato more intense, using EVERYTHING, in the same way our lovers are searching their tormented souls.

Pretty mystical stuff!

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Question: do the clusters in mm.6-9 have names? I'm finally able to sit down at the piano and play^H^H^H^H limp through these measures, and I love the sound of those chords. (They don't have to have names, I'm just wondering if this powerful naming convention has got its organized classifying fingers on these lovely chords.)

Years ago, when I was working closely with string sections, I could see and feel the UNREST building when the orchestra moved away from "familiar ground", key-wise. The change in the air was palpable! The brass were decidedly uneasy in the more "sharp keys", now having to concentrate carefully on intonation, where the strings were merrily singing away. However, because the strings are SO EXPRESSIVE, when they were uneasy, EVERYTHING changed!

Good point about "easy" being different keys for wind and string players.

The moment you move to "hard keys" for brass, they have to use more valves or longer positions (trombone). More tubing means a more "brittle" sound combined with higher harmonics on any given fingering/position, which also results in more "clams". And the intonation totally changes...

The moment you move to "hard keys" for brass, they have to use more valves or longer positions (trombone). More tubing means a more "brittle" sound combined with higher harmonics on any given fingering/position, which also results in more "clams". And the intonation totally changes...

Ed, this has taken a fascinating turn. Do you have a particular piece or two in mind to listen for this?

I do not wish, in any way, to detract from this excellent Debussy discussion and analysis, so I shall mention a couple, and leave it at that. Dear Old Jack did not write much for the piano, unfortunately, so it will probably be of minimal interest here. Even if he had, the exceptional phenomena about which I am writing would not really apply to a well-tempered clavir, all key centers being created equal.

La Boheme - Act I - Che gelida manina (What a cold little hand . . .) From here through to the end of the Act.(Originally, the very ending was written in Db major, for the reasons I mentioned. Several modern productions have transposed it down to C , because the high Db in the soprano is pianissimo, and off stage = too shrill!)

Act II - Vissi d’arte (Tosca laments having lived for her art, a gentle, chaste life. And now she must choose between seeing her lover put to death, or she, herself, killing his captor! Her prayer ends, “And now you leave me this?”) Primarily Eb minor! (what else?)

Act IV - E lucevane le stelle (Mario, on death row, recites a childhood poem, and muses that with death so near, he has never before loved life so much!) Stay with it: B minor, B major, F major, and the inevitable Gb major, ending in Eb minor!

Turandot - Act I - Non piangere, Liu - (Do not weep, Liu) - (Duet, becoming a trio, becoming a sextet, building to a cast of thousands) In Ab minor if I recall correctly (Yes! Count those flats!) Stay with it through the end of the Act - Eb minor.

WARNING: This stuff is highly addictive! DO NOT use with wine, or when you have anything else to do.

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Well, I started out teaching brass. I was lead euphonium player, long ago, in the FSU Wind Ensemble. This is the wrong place to talk about it, but I LOVE the primitive sound of valveless horns in Beethoven's symphonies. With the hand stopping (bell) and dangerous overtones that have to be played with precision, it is like watching a high-wire act with no net.

It's raw, primivite, and in something like the Eroica, it is hair-raising. I'll let you draw your own conclusions of what it does to put the strings in Eb. It's great for the brass!

Quote:

I do not wish, in any way, to detract from this excellent Debussy discussion and analysis, so I shall mention a couple, and leave it at that. Dear Old Jack did not write much for the piano, unfortunately, so it will probably be of minimal interest here. Even if he had, the exceptional phenomena about which I am writing would not really apply to a well-tempered clavir, all key centers being created equal.

No, but Debussy wrote some pretty fine music for orchestra. Ed, I don't care where discussions wander. No one owns a thread. It's most fun when we weave from one interesting thing to the next. If anyone feels that his or her point is being ignored, it is an easy matter to jump in with new points or new questions. Sincere people are never ignored for long, and your PADS point plays into what I have long felt: if someone is not part of the discussion, we get to decide where it goes.

I don't want to completely derail everything, but the quality of sound leads inevitably to tuning, and that goes off into a MILLION directions, all of which are interesting to me.

I have one more interesting spot to throw out in the Debussy, but I am in no hurry. Most of all I regret the fact that it is so hard to link to pictures that show the music we talk about. Talking about music, when we can neither see nor hear it, is almost unbearably frustrating!

Well, I started out teaching brass. I was lead euphonium player, long ago, in the FSU Wind Ensemble. This is the wrong place to talk about it, but I LOVE the primitive sound of valveless horns in Beethoven's symphonies. With the hand stopping (bell) and dangerous overtones that have to be played with precision, it is like watching a high-wire act with no net.

It's raw, primivite, and in something like the Eroica, it is hair-raising. I'll let you draw your own conclusions of what it does to put the strings in Eb. It's great for the brass!

Gary,

You did not, by any chance, play a double-bell, did you? One of the most facinating, and beautiful instruments ever!

My great-grandfather, before becoming a conductor, majored in BOMBARDINO! I, too, love the Eroica, but it is hard to find played with natural horns.

I also appreciate the invitation to change subjects, but like Claude, Giacomo deserves a thread of his very own. And probably no surprise, but La Mer is my favorite Debussy.Ed

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Well, I started out teaching brass. I was lead euphonium player, long ago, in the FSU Wind Ensemble. This is the wrong place to talk about it, but I LOVE the primitive sound of valveless horns in Beethoven's symphonies. With the hand stopping (bell) and dangerous overtones that have to be played with precision, it is like watching a high-wire act with no net.

It's raw, primivite, and in something like the Eroica, it is hair-raising. I'll let you draw your own conclusions of what it does to put the strings in Eb. It's great for the brass!

Gary,

You did not, by any chance, play a double-bell, did you? One of the most facinating, and beautiful instruments ever!

My great-grandfather, before becoming a conductor, majored in BOMBARDINO! I, too, love the Eroica, but it is hard to find played with natural horns.

I also appreciate the invitation to change subjects, but like Claude, Giacomo deserves a thread of his very own. And probably no surprise, but La Mer is my favorite Debussy.Ed

I have a set of recordings with Norrington, all the Beethoven symphonies.

You can hear the horn players practically shoving their fists into the bells as they play notes that do not exist on an un-stopped horn. It is SO different in sound. For something like the 6th I prefer a modern orchestra, but the 3rd, 4th and 7th symphonies are very cool to listen to that way.

I heard John Eliott Gardiner conducting one of those recently - on the radio driving home. It was from a live concert. I think it was the 7th. The energy was indescribable.

And I have a double-balled eublonium. As a student I played a Besson, but I have never been blessed with much money, so when I bought my own instrument, I found one of those double-belled instruments for what was a "song". When I gigged I did not get much chance to play brass - no one else to play keyboard for me - but if I got someone who could play, I used the small bore, small bell for playing. It's a fun instrument.

No suspicion of P.A.D.S. here. You have a clean bill of health with us!

One additional thought about listening to EXCERPTS - one does not fully experience the valleys before being rocketed to the top of the mountain, and visa-versa. Nevertheless, highlights are highlights, with or without the "preparation".

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.